WSP12533 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0016 ~i4 960 ECOLOGY lA W QUARTERLY [Vol. 28:903 States. Many endangered species in the Lower Colorado River - Delta region migrate freely between the U.S. and Mexico; as a result, it makes a great deal of sense for agencies seeking to protect listed species in the United States to ensure that habitat in Mexico is conseIVed or enhanced. 346 In essence, Defenders of Wildlife is an effort to use the ESA to force United States agencies to recognize that the Lower Colorado River and Delta is a single ecosystem and that it is thus inappropriate to consider the environmental impacts of federal agency actions on less than the totality' of the ecosystem. As the work of Ed Glenn and others has shown, the area below the border contains five times as much critical riparian habitat as does the Lower Colorado. within the United States.347 It makes ecological sense to consider the impact of actions taken in the United States on habitat that spans the U.s.-Mexican border. The potential consequences of the Defenders of Wildlife suit for Lower Colorado River operationS could be profound. Should the suit succeed, it will require that BOR consult with NMFS and FWS both on current operations and t:hi-ough the forthcoming MSCP process. Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies must "consult" with FWS. or NMFS in order to insure that the agencies' actions not "jeopardiZe the continued eXistence of any endangered species" or "result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat of such species...". 348 The agency submits data to FWS or NMFS on which FWS or NMFS bases its decision as to whether the agency action may potentially violate Section 7. After review of the data, FWS. or NMFS issues a biological opinion that assesses the impact of the agency's proposed action on the species.349 If FWS or NMFS finds 346. Somewhat ironically, environmentalists are not the only ones arguing that under the ESA federal agencies must consider impacts in Mexico: In May 2000,the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (iled suit against FWS arguing that the "critical habitat" for the pygmy owl must include a consideration of the habitat that the bird has across the Mexican border. See Howard Fischer, Home Builders Sue to Block OWL Rules, ARIz. DAILY STAR. May 16. 2000, at AI. In September 2001, the U.S. District Court of Arizona held that it was permissible for FWS to consider the pygmy owl population in Arizona a "distinct population segment" because the international borders result in differences in management of the species. National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Norton, No. CIV-OO-0903-PHX-SRB, at 8 (D. Ariz. filed Sep. 21. 2001) (order denying summary judgment). For purposes of listing a species as endangered, the court found that the question "is whether the species is facing extinction here in the United States. not whether the population in .Mexico is plentiful." Id 347. See Francisco Zaniora-AiToyo et al... Regeneration of Native Trees in Response to Flodd Releases from the United States into the Delta of the Colorado River. Mexico, 49 J. ARID ENV'TS 49 (2001), 348. 16 U.S.C. ~ 1536(a)(2) (1994). 349. See 16 U.S.C. ~ 1536(b) (1994).